BBC Blog Network

User Profile

CrumberNuncher

Listed below are comments made by CrumberNuncher between Friday, 2nd May 2008 and Friday, 18th July 2008.

«Newer
Older»

Brown is the Fiscal Rules 12:25pm on 18 Jul 2008 #10

Completely agree.

#20

I agree with all of your ideas, but completely disagree with your appreciation of how much GB has contributed to impending pain that the UK economy and public are facing and will face in coming months and years.

Over-valued housing market and an economic upturn built entirely on a platform of recycled debt, which is rapidly unwinding before everybody's eyes. That is what GB and Nw Labour have contributed to the UK, and he still persists in shifting the goal posts to try and hang on to power for as long as possible.

He wants to changes the rules to buy himself out of the mess that he has steered the UK into.

WIN THE ELECTION AT ALL COSTS!!! SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!

That is all he knows, tax heavily, spend heavier. Where is our contingency? What happened to the 'fat on the bone' during the good times? HE SPENT IT!!!!

Now he needs to change his own rules to SPEND MORE!

Restricted and one dimensional leadership with his own interests at the forefront of his decision-making, not what we need in the current climate...

I wouldn't want to win the election if I were Cameron, talk about wiping someone else's backside...
Selling public services 1:36pm on 11 Jul 2008 and worst of all, inefficiency and poor service goes unmanaged, unpunished and unreported as it allows scope for further spend, hence drawing more voters into the cycle...
Selling public services 1:31pm on 11 Jul 2008 1.5 million increase in public and civil servants in the last 10 years... fact.

Why?

So that they will vote for this government because their jobs depend on it.

Increased spend in private sector for provision of public services.

Why?

Increase dependancy on government spend for contractors and businesses, so that they will vote for this government because their livelihoods depend on it.

Tax increases, both direct and indirect in the last 10 years, introduction of stealth taxes, double taxation on gross salaries in combination with NIC's, pillaging of pensions etc etc etc etc etc.

Why?

To fund the above two points.
Bradford & Bingley rescued (again) 08:27am on 04 Jul 2008 Risk and Reward
If you take the risk in an attempt to acquire the reward you must be prepared for the worst case scenario, and the pain that accompanies it, if the risk becomes too great.

This is the basis of a free market, an economy driven by the laws of 'survival of the fittest'.

If a person, an individual, Mr Joe Public; takes risks, loses, and incurs massive liabilities, does he receive the backing that so many of our banks are receiving? The answer is no... He is expected to be held accountable for his actions, and face up to his liabilities. Why are banks and building societies so different?

If he invests in a FTSE 100 company, their shares lose significant value, the house he bought 12 months ago was at the top of the market and is now in negative equity, he loses his job because the company is struggling, he must sell both his shares and house at a significant loss and incurs many thousands of pounds of debt. So much so that he cannot afford to feed his two very young children and put a roof over their heads.
Where is his bail out? Where are his parachute and safety net? Where is the justice in ordinary people being made to suffer while financial institutions are saved again and again for far worse risk and reward speculation?

If a financial entity becomes economically and financially unviable, it has broken the laws of the 'free market', has taken the risks, not received the rewards, and should be held accountable for its actions. Let it fail... From the ashes a new, younger leaner company or companies will rise to take its place.

Why isn't this allowed to happen? Old boys network... Protect the few chosen ones... Maintain control over the devils that you know...

Whatever the reason, it is a disgrace. Constant interference, if a bank or building society fails through excessive exposure to risk, those that have been prudent are in a position to carve it up and take it on... Where is their reward for not taking undue risks when the market was up?

Even the Northern Rock debacle. There was a private sector solution presented which was perfectly viable, what happened? More interference.

This is unfortunately the assimilation of the controlling mentality exhibited by this government raising its ugly head in the financial and private sectors. Or maybe, it is the other way around...

Sick to my stomach of all of this old boy interference, constant constraint, lack of accountability in a free market. Why should financial institutions been prudent when they know that if they get into difficulties through taking too much risk, they will always have the crutch of unfair and imbalanced interference to rely on? Why are the FSA running around to make this happen?
Gieve to go 08:32am on 19 Jun 2008 AD's speech:-

"It will bring valuable, external expertise with City experience to bear on the Bank's decision making".

Won't these be the same 'City experts' that have helped create and perpetuate the credit crunch?

"The challenge for us is to ensure that the authorities can act quickly and decisively where necessary to support financial institutions".

What about supporting and protecting the voting, tax-paying public? This statement sums up the mentality of this government, protect the few at the expense of the many. The question that must be again asked is 'why should the financial institutions be offered such protection and support in a free market in which they profiteer during times of plenty?'

Banks offer customers an umbrella during sunny days and snatch it back at the first sign of cloud... Time to reap what they sow...

I am still disgusted at the £50billion bail out, is there any wonder that inflation is gaining momentum in an already delicate global market.

Save the banks, to hell with Joe Public!

I wonder where Gordon's next job will be? I also wonder where Labour will find it's cash injection to overcome its £20illion+ party debt?
The mortgage gap 1:13pm on 28 May 2008 Also, doesn't your point #32 directly contradict your argument?

The quote you detail is actually from the BBC's website, perhaps offering a balance of opinion?
So you agree that the BBC is presenting quotes representative of the both sides of the debate?

Oh dear...
The mortgage gap 1:09pm on 28 May 2008 Greyhammyhamster:-

The cold hard facts (not opinion or conjecture) are that the housing market is sliding, to argue against that point in its simplistic terms is ridiculous. This slide would have happened without reporting and commentary from journalists. It is driven by market conditions of which buyers desire to purchase is one of many limiting variables.

Instead of surfing websites to find prices at face value, try actually applying for them, you may well post again retracting your previous comments on how easily credit is available...

I am guessing that you are praying that the market doesn't crash for personal reasons or circumstance, and are trying to convince yourself as much as argue the point with others?
Inflation's the problem 08:26am on 14 May 2008 Yet another example of this government attempting to buy its way out of the gargantuan hole that they have dug themselves through their callous management and extremely poor foresight.

Gordon Brown has built his reputation on tax and spend policies, it is all that he knows. His answer to crisis is to buy his way out of it. He has done this with the £50billion bank bail out, and is doing it again now with the 10% tax debacle.

Our leader is one dimensional, and is not capable of leading the country through this crisis, but cannot bring himself to do the one thing that will alleviate strain on voters, CUT TAXES...

Reduce fuel duty
Increase the threshold for stamp duty
Increase the 3% threshold for stamp duty
Reduce VAT to 15%
VAT was originally for luxury or nonessential items, what happened to that?

These are the types of actions that I would like to see, as they will make a real difference.
Taxing multinationals 10:57am on 05 May 2008 Tax, spend, tax spend....

The current government, and its supporting functions, are not only making the UK an increasingly unpopular place to live, it is now fast becoming a place that discourages international investment.

Take the disaster that is Donald Trump's application to build a £1billion golf and leisure investment in Aberdeen. The application was rejected by a city council planning committee, even though it had the support of 80% of councillors and 90%+ support from the community.

The Scottish First Minister and the assembly intervened and took the decision back upon themselves (in Jan). Since then, there has been an investigation on who talked to who about the plan, who drove the decision to take the plan higher in the chain, why Donald Trump didn't appeal the initial application, etc etc etc. A decision that should have been made in December last year, has been delayed until at least July, and probably beyond by our procrastinating approach to dealing with international investment...
If we couple this type of bureaucracy with heightened tax regulation and costs, we may as well stick a great big 'out of order' sign in the middle of the country.

I am all for having a level playing field for tax, both corporate and individual, but what we must remember is that other governments just welcome the boost that job creation and minimal tax gives to their economies. We are in danger of pricing ourselves out of the market.

Tax cuts, across the board (at the expense of the 1.5million middle management government created positions that have materialised within the the last decade), is the way forward, for all industries and individuals, with a few minor exceptions:-

oil industry (record profits every week while the consumer pays through the nose, is there no scope for slicing into these £billions and releasing the pressure on the rest of us????)

supermarkets (am I the only person that sees the current rise in the cost of food, and directly relate it to the increasing profits being announced by supermarkets????)
Worst over - or not? 5:40pm on 02 May 2008 Have a look and add your name if you support it.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BoERescuePlan/

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

CrumberNuncher